There is an ongoing debate about whether governments should mainly prioritize the retention of historical buildings and cultural heritage or they should invest in the development of infrastructure and public services. Both views will be discussed in this essay.
On one hand, it is undeniable that historical buildings and cultural heritage are of paramount importance. Historical buildings possess significant historical value. In many European countries, including the United Kingdom, the majority of historical structures are well-preserved and their maintenance is funded by the government. Furthermore, history comprises a pivotal part of a country’s culture. It contributes to societal development and provides the populace with strong stimulus. Apart from that, during nationwide predicaments, history will serve as a main source of inspiration and courage. In addition, citizens often take pride in their heritage.
On the other hand, infrastructure and public services are also indispensable for the wellbeing of citizens. Public services are intended for the populace. Well-developed infrastructure will significantly improve government’s position and it can drive socioeconomic progress. Moreover, well-funded public services may result in overall satisfaction of people. Both are vital to societal progress and society’s advancement. It is evident that government’s main objective is the wellbeing of citizens. In addition, despite its undeniable significance, history indicates the past, whereas strong infrastructure and impeccable public services prioritize the welfare of citizens.
To put it in a nutshell, I acknowledge the utmost importance of history and cultural heritage. However, the welfare of people should be government’s first priority. Therefore, governments should invest in infrastructure and public services.